Schuette and the executive branch’s function in constitutional litigation

Posted Thu, September 12th, 2013 12:41 pm by John Neiman

John Neiman is Solicitor General for the State of Alabama, which joined Arizona’s amicus brief supporting the petitioners in Schuette. The views expressed in this post are his own.

Most of the headlines about Schuettefocus on the fundamental questions it presents about democracy and affirmative action. But the case also raises, in a way that could easily slip under the radar, important questions about the role executive officials play in constitutional litigation. A substantial debate arose over this issue last Term, and Schuette may demonstrate that this debate is going to continue for some time.

Everyone agrees that when someone challenges the constitutionality of a government’s laws, the executive branch of that government, typically through its attorney general, generally has a duty to defend those laws. Everyone also agrees that there are exceptions to that rule. The debate that has now arisen concerns precisely what those exceptions are.

The more traditional view holds that as a general matter, AGs must defend these laws even when they might acknowledge, in their heart of hearts, that there is a substantial chance that the courts eventually will strike them down. Under this view of things, the dispositive factor is not whether the AG personally believes a law to be constitutional. Instead, the dispositive factor is whether the AG can offer areasonable argument that the law ought to be sustained. As long as the answer is yes, then this theory says that the AG should serve as the advocate for the law, urging judges that it is should be allowed to stand. This theory views the relationship between AGs and their governments as largely equivalent to the relationship between private attorneys and their clients. It is simply the AG’s job, under this way of thinking, to give the government’s laws a zealous defense in the courts.

Michigan has chosen to defend the law at issue in Schuette, and that choice was consistent with the traditional view of what the executive branch does. The law in Schuette is a state constitutional amendment that bars the use of racial preferences in public-university admissions. Michigan adopted this amendment in 2006, a decade after California ratified a virtually identical amendment to its own constitution. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had upheld California’s amendment against the same constitutional challenge the plaintiffs would later bring against Michigan. And the Ninth Circuit had offered principled reasons for doing so. That court’s opinion, standing alone, could have been reason enough for Michigan’s executive branch to conclude that it had a duty to defend this law in court.

Schuette thus took an interesting turn last Friday, when California filed an amicus brief asking the Court to declare Michigan’s law unconstitutional. California, joined by five other states and the District of Columbia, is now effectively arguing that the Ninth Circuit was wrong. The brief doesn’t explain precisely why California has changed its position. But it notes that California’s amendment is virtually identical to Michigan’s, and it all but acknowledges that if the Court strikes down Michigan’s law, the same fate will befall California’s law as well.

The same-sex marriage cases last Term gave rise to a similar dynamic. The executive branches for two governments in those cases – the United States’ and California’s – asked the Court to invalidate their governments’ laws in that context as well. But California may be taking things to a new level in Schuette. When the same-sex marriage cases arrived at the Court, the lower courts had agreed that those laws could not be sustained. The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, has upheld the California amendment that Schuette implicates. So California doesn’t just have a reasonable argument that this amendment should continue to stand. It has a binding appellate decision that holds this argument to be correct.

These developments suggest an alternative theory about when executive officials should defend their governments’ laws – one that clearly played a role in the same-sex marriage cases, and one that may now be playing a role in Schuette. Under this theory, a reasonable argument for the law may not, by itself, be enough. The dispositive factor may instead be whether the executive branch can conclude, in its own judgment, that the law is constitutional. The executive branch, under this theory, might consider that question at the outset of the case. Once that has happened, then the executive branch might approach the law’s defense – or its non-defense – in a manner consistent with that initial determination. The United States openly operated under this theory in the same-sex marriage cases, and it may explain what California is doing in Schuette, too.

There was plenty of debate during the same-sex marriage cases about which of these theories makes for better government; I’m not going to summarize all those arguments or take a particular side in that debate here. The mere fact that this dynamic may have reemerged in Schuette is, for present purposes, noteworthy enough. Many people assumed that these happenings in the same-sex marriage cases were attributable to the once-in-a-lifetime nature of the issues presented there. But if Schuette is any indication, we may be seeing governments take a similar approach in a variety of contexts. And if that happens, it could mark substantial changes in both the way we think about constitutional litigation and the way our constitutional system works.

[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents inSchuette. However, the author of this post (like all of the contributors to this online symposium) is not affiliated with the law firm.]

Current Relists

Conference of November 16, 2018

Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Whether the provisions of the Medicaid Act that require participating states to include in their plans the ability of eligible individuals to obtain services from any “qualified” provider, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), but grant states broad authority to exclude providers for violating state or federal requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p), indicate that Congress clearly and unambiguously intended to create an implied private right of action to challenge a state’s determination that a provider is not “qualified” under the applicable state regulations.

City of Escondido, California v. Emmons (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; (2) whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on a single decision, published after the event in question, to support its conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and (3) whether the lower court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was without probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.

Fleck v. Wetch (1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and (2) whether Keller v. State Bar of California and Lathrop v. Donohue should be overruled insofar as they permit the state to force the petitioner to join a trade association he opposes as a condition of earning a living in his chosen profession.

Major Cases

In re Department of CommerceWhether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association(1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

Gamble v. United StatesWhether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.

Timbs v. IndianaWhether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Apple Inc. v. PepperWhether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.